Up till now, I've never used anything other than old or disposible film cameras,
and almost never get the pictures developed anyway. I could really use
some good photoshopped pictures for my websites, but I need a digital camera
(I live in a really scenic area).
You guys are the experts on this - what would be a cheap, but ok digital camera
that would be under, say.... 100 bucks? any luck on ebay?

I don't know prices in your part of the world. If you get the best Canon, Nikon or Minolta you can afford you won't go to far wrong. Just remember that digital zoom won't do much for you, its optical zoom you want.
I wouldn't buy one through ebay.
Hope this helps a little.

would you say that those are the best brands? and do you expect prices to go down any time soon, like what happens with computers?

Prices have been steadily dropping since they were introduced. I bought a Canon Ixus (I forget which model) about 3 years ago and it cost me about $1000. Now you could pick up an Ixus with the same or better specs for around $250 (I'm talking Aussie dollars here). I could recommend that model BTW if you can find one for the price you want. I was pretty happy with it and it is still a good compact camera but since I got an SLR I just don't need it any more.

Sounds like a sales pitch to me;-)

Yes I think they are the most reliable makers of quality cameras. Prices of digital cameras are falling and will continue to fall for some time (maybe for all time) just like computers and for the same reasons. The camera I wanted to buy last March but couldn’t afford is now the same price as one I did buy last March. Its called progress :-)

I was checking out a review of the Sony DSC-V3 at dpreview (link), which included review information on 4 other similar models. This review includes the gem "It's also relatively nice that each has its own strengths and weaknesses and its own 'personality', none are really clones of the next and each will no doubt appeal to a different buyer." Now, this statement refers to five cameras which all use the same CCD chip (a 7MP one) and all have a price of around $700. These are five companies attempts at a single 7MP camera. Now consider that each company probably has a model line of 10-20 cameras ranging from $100 to $1,000 (or up to $10,000 in the case of DSLRs). For this reason, it's hard for us as a collective to recommend anything to anyone else and be spot-on.

It's made a little easier in this case, since you seem to be more budget-limited than feature-limited. Trisbert is right about those companies, they are some of the most reputable names in the business, along with Olympus, and his advice about getting as much as you can afford is also good. The problem with digital is that you'll probably like it so much, you'll outgrow what you have and want something better.

As for ebay, the advantage of buying from a business (retail or online) is that you have someone to complain to if something goes wrong.

I bought the Minolta A2 HERE after having owned the Minolta 7Hi. Konika has vastly improved the viewing screen (it tilts) and included an anti-shake feature which helps in low light and macro. I feel any brand of comparable digital camera is well worth the $100-$200 difference, especially if you're a film buff making the transition. Obviously the DSLRs are still very expensive, but if you already own a Nikon lens system, that's the way to go.

this is an expansion of my original question - in the low cost range,
what are the most maintainable, serviceable, and reliable in terms of
breakage, defects, wear and tear, etc? Basically what I mean is,
what will be the easiest to get fixed in case something goes wrong?

The one that is easiest to fix is the brand with a service centre near you. If you stick with the better manufacturers you would be very unlucky to get a dud camera.

We cant be specific about which model to buy because the market is constantly changing and varies from region to region. For example my camera is known by one name in America another name in Europe and yet another name in Asia.

Can you be a little more specific about your needs? how big do you want your pictures. Do you want to make photography a hobby or is the camera going to be just a tool to get the job done?

Only the most expensive cameras are worth repairing once out of warranty. Repairs often cost as much or more than a new camera. Fortunately, most brands seem to have at least a year warranty, and extended ones are available. Often the extended warantees are unnecessary, since once the camera has made it a year, the probablity is that it will continue working until you want something new anyway.

Digitals aren't like old manual cameras, there's pretty much nothing you can take apart and service on your own. (not to mention the ~300volt capacitor in them, they hurt) Anyway, you'll most likely have to mail it to the manufacturer or a service center, so again, as Robert said, if there's one near you, it might be faster.

I think that pretty much answers the questions I had. As for usage,
I'll do mostly landscapes - ocean and mountains, etc. Just recently
I went to the california coast with nothing but a DISPOSABLE kodak
and found that I have a knack for framing great shots - the only
thing that limits me (besides lack of experience) is not having
a real camera.

My Kodak LS 443 now has a dud pixel(s). I should have took the sales pitch for the extended warranty as the original warranty is up. It appears as a bright red dot and gets a touch of clone stamp every time. I think the extended warranty is a hit and miss...sometimes you will get lucky. Extension on my next camera for sure;-)

I suppose it would be nice to not have to worry about dead pixels, but they're a fact of digital, and I tend to ignore them. My olympus developed a bright white stuck pixel about dead-center frame at about month 11 of the year-long warranty. I was really upset for awhile, but then just decided that I'd rather just deal with it in the shots that mattered, ignore it in those that didn't, and not lose my camera for 1-2 weeks. My S1 came with a stuck blue pixel in the upper-left corner (I can now see it in shots I took in the store parking lot) but I didn't notice it for a week or two. I figured it's only going to develop more over time, and returning it may get me a worse one, so it just seemed easier to hold on to it and maybe have it (and any other problems that show up) fixed just before the warranty expires (if I can bear to part with it for the repairs).

But I also had bought an extended (3-year) warranty on a film Olympus, that never mattered because I never had problems, and then stopped using it for digital. In the meantime, it cost something like an extra 20% on top of the original camera's cost.

Well, hopefully the technology does not settle as acceptable the way Microsoft windows has. It should be a crime to have such poorly designed products on the market. It is funny how you can't get extended warranty for software that fails after a upgrade. I feel like a crash test dummy;-)

If you're talking about dead/stuck pixels, that's a limit of the current technology. The cells degrade over time. In fact, every CCD has some dead/stuck pixels that are mapped out at the factory, and they continue to develop over time and use. (The way pixels are fixed is by mapping them out, the firmware interpolates the color from the surrounding pixels instead of the dead one). All circuits degrade ofer time, just that CCDs show it more readily than say, a pentium chip.
I doubt that this will stagnate; compare today's digitals to early film cameras. There's been over 100 years to correct the problems of film to today's consumer standards, whereas digital is really only maybe 10 years old.

Lol, I just had a full chest and had to vent a bit. I understand it is a machine and will wear out with time...nothing lasts forever. Aren't we lucky in that respect. I was talking more about Microsoft Windows...little off topic;-)

Oh, I can certainly understand being upset with either windows or a dead pixel. Both are infuriating, and both eventually just make you surrender and say "meh". :)

Ok, how about 4 dead pixels! Just took a snap of a black background and upon close inspection found 3 more. I think this puppy is wearing out quick;-) Hello Santa, please send new digital camera!

Mike, I read somewhere that some Olympus cameras allow you to map hot pixel’s out. Might be worthwhile checking into.

Good point Robert, I think their DSLRs can do it, but really doubt this one can. It's a cheap p&s, but it worked well for me for a few years. I'm almost certain the person who inherited it (Hi Mom!) can't see or won't mind the pixels, so it all works out.

OK I never respond to threads, but I will make an exception, in answer to your basic question, yes you need a digital camera given your circumstances, for the basic reason that you are not developing your film, I will not attempt to tell you which camera to buy, and I remember you said a hundred bucks, only my reason for buying one, I chose a Kodak DX4530 5Mp, not because it was the best, because it could do what I want for the price I could afford, as far as quality every picture you see in this gallery was taken with that camera http://mitsubishiman.deviantart.com/gallery/ in 2004 I took 3200 photos, if I were to buy the film at 4 bucks for a 24 exp roll, and then found a deal and developed them all at 4 bucks a roll, it would have cost approx $1100.00 , so you see if you like to take a lot of pictures on the go as an amateur you will be money ahead, this would of course give you an excuse to spend more money on a camera, but if money is an issue then look at the inexpensive cameras for now, get some experience, have some fun - take lots of pictures and save your money for the day you can afford the dream camera, for now that is, the only advice I will give you is stay above the 3.2 Mp cameras, and remember it will save you money

You know, it's funny about 3.2 MP. It does seem to be a line at which the quality of cameras changes, but as far as resolution is concerned 3.2 is just fine. If you print your images at less than 11"x14" size you will not see a difference between 3.2 and higher resolutions. It's only when you get up to poster-sized images that you really see a difference. Now having said that, if you shoot good images, you will quickly reach that point and you will regret having saved that money on a 3.2MP camera as do I when I try to print images from my 4MP camera. They lose quality when I print them above 30", and though this seems frivoluous, if someone asks you to sell one of your images, but you can't print it the size they want you will be VERY upset, and remember that you can never re-create the conditions that produce any one shot, so you can't go back and take a better version of a low-res image. ramble, ramble, ramble...